Are the Purolators still failing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
My filters have never torn, that is proof enough for me.


You're going in circles ... again.
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I feel the only safe data to go by is all the Purolator spin on filters (P1 and Classic) that were manufactured within the first and last failure dates. To make things easier, you could also just find the first failed date and make it to present day.. since "technically" the problem could still exist.

For example, an un-torn synthetic or P1/ Classic cartridge filter is except as well as anything made before the first tear date.

*That is a lot of digging.


Im just going to be looking for filters between the two dates that are verified by pictures. I will probably count any Purolator product (Classic, P1, Synthetic), spin on or cartridge, or their rebadges. If it is a quality problem, the rebadged filters have just as much risk of failure as the branded ones.

Easiest way: Start a thread were people post a picture of their untorn filter. That way their is proof and I wont have to go digging through miles of posts like these.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
*That is a lot of digging.


He wouldn't have time to troll and shill then.
frown.gif
 
^^^ OK, I know you're baked now when you start claiming grammar is bad. It's a sure sign that lameness has set in on your participation.

So riddle me this batman ... why don't you run a Classic or PureOne. You just list the Purolator Synthetic in your signature. You afraid they might tear on you?

And BTW, when you do your counts on non-torn filter, the full synthetics are banned from being counted because they never had an issue to start with. Keep it real.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I feel the only safe data to go by is all the Purolator spin on filters (P1 and Classic) that were manufactured within the first and last failure dates. To make things easier, you could also just find the first failed date and make it to present day.. since "technically" the problem could still exist.

For example, an un-torn synthetic or P1/ Classic cartridge filter is except as well as anything made before the first tear date.

*That is a lot of digging.


Im just going to be looking for filters between the two dates that are verified by pictures. I will probably count any Purolator product (Classic, P1, Synthetic), spin on or cartridge, or their rebadges. If it is a quality problem, the rebadged filters have just as much risk of failure as the branded ones.

Easiest way: Start a thread were people post a picture of their untorn filter. That way their is proof and I wont have to go digging through miles of posts like these.


I see your point since their QC department is under the same roof, but adding the filters without the trend tear wont give accurate numbers IMO.

Bosch Premium= P1
Promotive= Classic

That's all I can think of at the top of my head.

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues." One could ague the cartridge filters are exempt from this as well. (Several guys here wont use a spin on, but will use a cartridge worry free.) The Synthetic doesn't have the issue either.
 
Originally Posted By: dlundblad

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues."


That's probably because they use different media that isn't as prone to tearing under the same conditions.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


...So riddle me this batman ... why don't you run a Classic or PureOne. You just list the Purolator Synthetic in your signature. You afraid they might tear on you?
.


I am currently using a Pureone, but since I bought a ton of Mobil 1 on sale I will be switching to their synthetic line. I have no problem with the P1 and have the utmost confidence that this one I have in use now will be tear free.



Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I feel the only safe data to go by is all the Purolator spin on filters (P1 and Classic) that were manufactured within the first and last failure dates. To make things easier, you could also just find the first failed date and make it to present day.. since "technically" the problem could still exist.

For example, an un-torn synthetic or P1/ Classic cartridge filter is except as well as anything made before the first tear date.

*That is a lot of digging.


Im just going to be looking for filters between the two dates that are verified by pictures. I will probably count any Purolator product (Classic, P1, Synthetic), spin on or cartridge, or their rebadges. If it is a quality problem, the rebadged filters have just as much risk of failure as the branded ones.

Easiest way: Start a thread were people post a picture of their untorn filter. That way their is proof and I wont have to go digging through miles of posts like these.


I see your point since their QC department is under the same roof, but adding the filters without the trend tear wont give accurate numbers IMO.

Bosch Premium= P1
Promotive= Classic

That's all I can think of at the top of my head.

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues." One could ague the cartridge filters are exempt from this as well. (Several guys here wont use a spin on, but will use a cartridge worry free.) The Synthetic doesn't have the issue either.


If it is a quality control issue or defective manufacturing, failure should be present than in more than one or two styles of filter. IIRC their have been some motorcraft filters that have torn also.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dlundblad

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues."


That's probably because they use different media that isn't as prone to tearing under the same conditions.


No. On the rebadged ones I have used the media is the same, but the pleats, arrangements and/or bypass system were slightly different.
 
I'm glad this thread has exploded since my last login. Lol.

So at this point I have one last question. The way this question is answered will give me all the evidence I need to form my final opinion. Here it goes:
Originally Posted By: jk_636
If I was a Purolator executive, my attitude would be very similiar. "You used my base model filter for 10k miles+ and it tore? So sorry..."


Ok Mr. (Wanna-be) Purolator Executive, what does your attitude have to say about my real life, first-hand PureOne (NOT base model) 3,000 mile failure?

Do you not remember? It was in this thread.

Sorry to rain on your parade...
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


...So riddle me this batman ... why don't you run a Classic or PureOne. You just list the Purolator Synthetic in your signature. You afraid they might tear on you?
.


I am currently using a Pureone, but since I bought a ton of Mobil 1 on sale I will be switching to their synthetic line. I have no problem with the P1 and have the utmost confidence that this one I have in use now will be tear free.



Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I feel the only safe data to go by is all the Purolator spin on filters (P1 and Classic) that were manufactured within the first and last failure dates. To make things easier, you could also just find the first failed date and make it to present day.. since "technically" the problem could still exist.

For example, an un-torn synthetic or P1/ Classic cartridge filter is except as well as anything made before the first tear date.

*That is a lot of digging.


Im just going to be looking for filters between the two dates that are verified by pictures. I will probably count any Purolator product (Classic, P1, Synthetic), spin on or cartridge, or their rebadges. If it is a quality problem, the rebadged filters have just as much risk of failure as the branded ones.

Easiest way: Start a thread were people post a picture of their untorn filter. That way their is proof and I wont have to go digging through miles of posts like these.


I see your point since their QC department is under the same roof, but adding the filters without the trend tear wont give accurate numbers IMO.

Bosch Premium= P1
Promotive= Classic

That's all I can think of at the top of my head.

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues." One could ague the cartridge filters are exempt from this as well. (Several guys here wont use a spin on, but will use a cartridge worry free.) The Synthetic doesn't have the issue either.


If it is a quality control issue or defective manufacturing, failure should be present than in more than one or two styles of filter. IIRC their have been some motorcraft filters that have torn also.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dlundblad

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues."


That's probably because they use different media that isn't as prone to tearing under the same conditions.


No. On the rebadged ones I have used the media is the same, but the pleats, arrangements and/or bypass system were slightly different.


Its hard to say how their operations run. We havent experienced any tear-like failures with Motorcraft or Mopars so I imagine something different is being done. IMO, the failed Motorcraft filters that were added to the list looked like they were flawed right from the factory.

I am pretty sure they use a different media formulations for the MC and Mopar filters. MCs are sometimes in service 10k and it has been said here that 10k is way too long for an entry level to be in service. Either way, it is impossible to know one way or the other. I doubt they would tell us.

Just consider what I said. Ill shut up now though.
smile.gif


Either way, itll be interesting to see what you find.

(You can add my none failed Promotive to the list of good filters btw.
laugh.gif
)
 
It's more of an engineering issue on the filter media than a QC issue. Doesn't make sense why anyone would take a chance with oil filter tearing. The evidence is clear, and Purolator is more worried about the bottom line than my engine. No more Purolators for me, except I think I have a D+ left to use up. As far as I am concerned since they have not published a correction to the media problem concerns, by redesigning, whatever, the problem still exists. The Denso media is strong and has no end caps, no tearing, the FU has a wire mesh backing, I'll stick with those two. I am glad I spotted this issue here, would never have known, which is why Puro keeps relatively quiet, which makes them even worse. An oil filter should be able to be left on forever, going into bypass mode, no tearing.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Anything at or below 15% I would consider acceptable. That would account for margin of error and the occasional dud.


I don't think you work for Purolator, but you sure sound like you do, or own a lot of shares in the company. I find it odd the depths you and cpt are going to defend a company that puts out an inferior product.

You seem to ignore or gloss over the fact that the number of failures are high given that the number of BITOGers who C&P their filters are small relative to the general population.

In fairness, the failures are not expected on all product applications. For example, the 14476 is not known to be problematic and I installed one on the wife's Corolla a few months back. But for the Hondas, which both use 14610 and 3323, I wouldn't consider using it.

Here's what is printed on the box of the Bosch 3323:
Quote:
Up to 42% more filtering area than conventional filters.
Filter media up to 30% thicker than conventional filters.


I've looked all over the box. No where on the box indicates for how long and for how many miles I can use it for. Thus, I'm expecting it meets or exceeds the OEM requirements. My Civic's expected OCI is 7000-7500 miles.

On the P1:
Quote:
Micronic media traps microscopic contaminants

PTFE treated sealing gasket for ease of installation and removal

Silicone anti drainback valve** lasts longer for extended protection against engine dry start.

PURE OIL NOW. PURE OIL LATER.


No where on the P1 box mentions anything about OCI either.

In conclusion, I'm not sure how you can defend the indefensible. Their product flaws are apparent, but it doesn't appear they are a company taking responsibility for the issues, while at the same time, blaming the consumer for using the product too long (even though the product used was for the vehicle-specified OCI). You may not have any problems because your application doesn't have any known issues, but many others have and that's the crux of the discussion.

My confidence in Purolator-made oil filters are at near zero. My buddy has a firearms license. I think I will give him my P1 and Bosch for target practice.

At least with the FRAM OCOD, the media looked ugly, but didn't tear.
 
I've seen many oil filters left for years but I didn't cut them open back then. Didn't see any signs of trouble. I see no reason the media should tear on a filter unless it is defective. Simply make the media strong enough to withstand the pressure until the bypass valve opens.

All of them should handle this.
 
Maybe they are trying to improve things without ever admitting there was an issue--materials, human, or otherwise. 30% of the job openings in the Fayetteville plant focus on some sort of quality (choose US and then Fayetteville):

Mann+Hummel Job Openings
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dlundblad

QS, MC, and Mopar are all Purolator made, but don't have the same "issues."


That's probably because they use different media that isn't as prone to tearing under the same conditions.


No. On the rebadged ones I have used the media is the same, but the pleats, arrangements and/or bypass system were slightly different.


The media can't be exactly the same on some of the "made by Purolator" brands because the efficiency rating on those filters is different due to the media being different.

If you have ever cut open a Classic or PureOne, you would see how stiff and brittle the media is. It's been mentioned many times by different people who have cut open failed filters.
 
Originally Posted By: sir1900
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Anything at or below 15% I would consider acceptable. That would account for margin of error and the occasional dud.


You seem to ignore or gloss over the fact that the number of failures are high given that the number of BITOGers who C&P their filters are small relative to the general population.


As I mentioned before, there have been 57 reported Purolator built filters in the tracking spread sheet since about Apr-May 2014. Even if the failure rate was 15%, that means there would have to be 380 good filters reported here on BITOG to balance the failures. 15% failure rate is horrible anyway. If the failure rate was say 1%, then it would take 5,700 good filters. There probably hasn't been 5,700 cut open and posted filters here over the last 10 years, so obviously trying to prove there it no problem isn't going to be very easy by listing all the filters that haven't torn.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Maybe they are trying to improve things without ever admitting there was an issue--materials, human, or otherwise. 30% of the job openings in the Fayetteville plant focus on some sort of quality (choose US and then Fayetteville):

Mann+Hummel Job Openings


So in order to find out, guinea pigs are needed. Why be a guinea pig, let the brand loyalists be those. I still won't buy them unless they address the problem and the evidence for it openly.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
So in order to find out, guinea pigs are needed. Why be a guinea pig, let the brand loyalists be those. I still won't buy them unless they address the problem and the evidence for it openly.
While I completely agree with you, I see a major flaw in that theory. I think it's the same thing that has been missed throughout this thread. The fanboys that cut their filters open are almost guaranteed NOT to post a bad filter. So of course the fanboys will "never" have a tear
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top